12/24/2005

PRESIDENT BUSH IS FOND OF berating opponents of the Iraq war who allegedly claim that Arab nations such as Iraq aren’t ready for democracy. The president now needs to explain democracy to Iraq’s Sunnis and let them know that in elections like the one held last week, the group with the most votes wins.

Unfortunately for the Sunnis, those were the other guys.

Yeah, well, he tried to explain that same concept to Democrats in this country after the last presidential election, and they didn’t take to the explanation any better than the Sunnis are likely to.

Nor have Democrats behaved as though they understand the idea that “the group with the most votes wins.” Didn’t someone filibuster Bush’s judicial nominees and the renewal of the Patriot Act? Which group was that? The one with the most votes in Congress?

Question for Times editors: Is the United States not ready for democracy just because the Democrat party is filled with sore losers?

(Second question: where is your editorial saying that President Bush needs to explain democracy to the Democrats?)

Welcome to democracy, Iraq. It’s not always perfect, and it doesn’t leave everyone happy. But it beats what you had before.

The more I become convinced that Bush’s secret surveillance program is legal, the more I want to know: when will a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate this damaging leak? This one blows the Valerie Plame thing out of the water.

Jeff Goldstein is not a lawyer, but he reasons better than most lawyers. He has a post that quotes a guy who is a lawyer, ranting about Bush’s secret surveillance program. Once I saw this guy’s rant, I felt I had to respond — until I saw Jeff’s response. Jeff takes apart the guy’s arguments one by one, very elegantly, making any response by me superfluous. So Jeff saved me a lot of time, which I appreciate.

P.S. The guy Jeff quotes claims no conservative defending the program has mentioned the Youngstown case. Gee, didn’t I mention that case the other day? Why, yes, I did.